Looks l like "No" has won in Italy, and their prime minister has announced that he will follow through with his resignation. The President of Italy will be constructing a makeshift government of technocrats until new elections are underway in 2017. Five-star, the right wing populist party is looking to make major gains in parliament, and Forzo Nuova (New Force) is looking to enter the national stage.

So I'm researching more about Soros and trying to understand him. Why did he spend a massive amount of money against trying to keep Bush from being re-elected in 2004? I thought the Bush family was definite part of the "establishment" in the same sense as the Clinton family (whom Soros controls/loves)

There's really no such thing as a unified "establishment". There are people within the "establishment", just as outside it, who have different political views. Soros tends to support left-wing, "progressive" causes and candidates. The Koch Brothers are basically the same as George Soros but on the (libertarian-ish) Right, and like him give lots of money to candidates, activist groups, PACs and think tanks that align with their views.

It's so scary that a satanic child abuse ring run out of a pizza restaurant by prominent politicians can be so well covered up that no physical evidence, alleged victims or real corroborating documentation exists and the only people doing actual investigation are reclusive 20 something 4chan and twitter users who read several emails and looked at an Instagram page.

But seriously, if you actually threaten or attack people over a 4chan rumor you're a piece of shit.

No one of them was a good candidate. Both of them represent too much the extreme side of politics. And if you take an economic look on politics, Van der Bellen is the better choice... At some point, even the European Union is forced to find a solution for the refugee crisis, and a lot of the Austrians who voted for the green guy today, don't want a president, who only talks about refugees and focuses on them. Imagine a Trump (i have nothing against him) which only talks about Mexican immigtants and not about other topics like unemployment.

From what I understand the president of Austria is very very limited in his actual power, it's the parliament there that decides most of the stuff. So when they have their 2018 votes for parliament seats, people could still turn out more for anti-migrant politicians.

In Austria, we describe a lot of non middle things as extreme... if you take a look at our Nazi background and on the Russian which were here after the war was over, we made horrible experiences with left and right wing peopel, and so Austrians describe everything which even goes a little bit in one direction as extreme. Politics in Austria used to be the mixture between left and right - middle, with a bit of "modern progress" politics, e.g. that abortion stuff.

i mean i know jack shit about either of them, the only thing i know is that hofer is a populist, which gives him bad marks in my book automatically, everyone can go out and claim that he will fix everything wrong in the world but following through with these promises is something completely different

the new surge of nationalism in europe i only care about anything outside of germany by proxy tho, if they leave the eu our exports will likely suffer else i dont give a shit is something i look upon skeptically anyway, especially in regards to germany, but also outside in the rest of europe, the refugees are here and are a problem that has to be dealt with, and its not a problem that can magical be fixed just because politicians promise to do so with little to no plan on how exactly it will go down

and being frank, the refugee crisis is by no means the biggest issue we face in terms of national and international politics, its not even a contender to the likes of unemployment, low birthrates (and the resulting issues with the Rentenversicherung no idea what this is in english , the differences between BRD and former DDR, and even Politikverdrossenheit again no idea what this is in english in general where barely 50% of the eligible people of voting age even bother going

Back then they where conservatives who drew attention to important topics like environment, but later on, they became the "i love everything-tree huger" party you described... Well, most people who voted the green guy today, would never vote the green party, if it wasn't a presidental election.

"When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent [...] Republicans oppose this, remember? We support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail."
- Sarah Palin, talking about Trump's deal with Carrier

It's great that she is her own person, at least. Funny that leftists (not you, but many anti-trumpers) spend the last 8 years denouncing Sarah Palin as an idiot, then stepped up their efforts when she endorsed Trump, then turned the hate up to 11 when she was considered for head of the VA, and now suddenly when she speaks out against Trump she's this wonderful person and it somehow validates their argument. Same for right wingers, she given "unfair treatment" for 2008 to now, given "unnecessary hate" after she endorsed donald and was considered for head of VA, and then suddenly she's a fucking moron when she speaks out against him.

What Palin says is true, that is something Republicans stand against, and it is arguably crony capitalism, and she made quite the argument for it. However, I feel like (and hope) this is not reflective of the Trump presidency, as he's only the president-elect and can't enact any policies nor hold an authority until January 20th.

Gee, it's almost as if people get tired of free market capitalism when it costs them their

>jobs
>wealth
>possessions
>safety
>sovereignty
>etc

Nah, status quo politics is where it's at. Trump would do just fine of he reneged on everything he promised during the election and the very principle of his platform. After all, the Romney campaign is something all real (Read: Neo) Cons should look up to.

Yes, there is more to freedom than just economic freedom, but economic freedom is an important and necessary part.
You don't need to be 100% absolutely free to count as "free" for practical purposes. (I define freedom as freedom from coercion, by the way.)
But on a sliding scale, the citizens of a country with heavy economic regulation, bans on sale/ownership of certain goods, high taxes, economic planning, trade protectionism etc are less free than the citizens of a country without those things, all else being equal.

The free market is not to blame for everybody's woes. It's true that in a free-market system some people will lose their jobs, some businesses will close down, etc, but that's natural - new jobs are created to replace those that are lost. In the long run such a system leads to increased wealth, prosperity, and technological advancement for virtually everyone. At least, as long as there is free and fair competition - as opposed to monopolies, or crony capitalism (in which large companies lobby for favorable legislation to give them an unfair competitive advantage).

If the government interferes every time a company decides to lay off people, it's just going to stifle economic development and prop up obsolete industries. It is not the job of the government to intervene in the operation of a private business to prevent you from being fired. I think the government does have a legitimate role in regulating economic activity, but it does not exist simply to solve everyone's problems.

You were being sarcastic, but Romney was a much better candidate than Trump. Not exactly a principled ideologue, sure, but a reasonable and competent statesman with experience in both the private and public sector and a generally good understanding of how things work. Trump has neither principles nor relevant knowledge. Many of his promises were shitty and poorly-conceived in the first place, and in those cases he should renege on them in the interest of good governance. It's not like he's generally opposed to flip-flopping.

One last point on the neocon thing: I think you're using it as a generic insult for conventional Republicans, but "neoconservative" actually is a specific foreign policy term for people who support an interventionist foreign policy aimed at spreading democracy and Western values, and promoting US interests abroad. For example, the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute. Romney is hardly an isolationist, but he's no Rumsfeld-esque neocon either.

"Crony capitalism" is just capitalism taken to its logical conclusion. It's always a step forward in its earliest stages, and was considerably progressive in the feudal era, but eventually the gravy train rolls to a stop and the system eats society alive to maintain itself. To collude and control the economy at the expense of the working class is just in your self-interest if you own a large business.

That said, nationalists are usually cognitive-dissonant and end up reverting to welfare capitalism because they can't think of any alternatives.

If you have a totally free market, or anything approaching that, crony capitalism is pretty much inevitable.

I believe that the government should interfere if it's in the best interests of the nation's people. Economic competitiveness is a concept that should, of course, be taken into account, but it comes secondary to the common good.

Romney was the definition of an establishment Republicans, and he proved that an establishment Republican won't win presidential elections any time soon.

I'm not all for redefining words willy-nilly, but you have to admit that it's taken on a more relevant meaning than that in recent years.

Crony capitalism can be curtailed through various laws and government measures that would restrict corporations's special access to the government, and by replacing politicians who are corrupt or deeply beholden to monied corporate interests. By definition, free-market capitalism does not have the government interference inherent to crony capitalism.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, as a general rule market forces are much better at creating an efficient, productive and growing economy than are human planners in the government. Even well-intentioned government policies often have a way of failing or producing unintended negative consequences.
I don't believe that the market can fix everything - there are such things as "market failures", for example when it comes to the environment - but I do believe that individual humans freely making decisions in their own interests typically do a much better job of ensuring their own welfare than do central planners trying to make decisions in everyone's best interests.

Romney was an establishment Republican, yes, but I don't think he proved the inadequacy of establishment Republicans as candidates. True, he happened to be a pretty bland, uninspiring candidate and consequently lost to Obama. However I think he could have easily beaten the deeply unpopular Hillary Clinton. And so could Marco Rubio, John Kasich or many of the other establishment Republicans running in this year's Republican primaries. I also think Romney would have made a decent President, and could yet make a good Secretary of State, if Trump picks him for that position.
Unfortunately, in a democracy the best-suited candidate is not necessarily the one that wins.

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally, Marty. Laws are just words written on paper, and can easily be repealed as a result of corruption if they're not effective enough at combating said corruption. If you allow for actions to be taken to the direct disadvantage of your people in the private sector, it'll shift the balance of power in favour of international elements and seep into the public sector. I honestly don't think that free market capitalism is at all effective at combating international cronyism in the long term.

"You can't just create a robust and effective state-capitalist system, Fascist powers of the Axis!"
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

I'm not for total planning of the economy, but adapted capitalism within the framework of the state seems like a good idea to me.

Again, four dimensions. Romney lost largely because he failed to capture the spirit/principle of populism, which at that point was nascent but important. Obama offered more "change", no matter how vague and ill defined, than any establishment Republican would ever allow himself to. Thus, he won. Now that a fully-fledged Populist has the White House, the flood gates that started leaking back then have burst open. Mark my words, Populism will be the new hot trend in American politics. It'll be the death of the current establishment as we know it on both sides.

I agree that there's nothing inherent to the free market itself that would combat crony capitalism, international or domestic. I am not such an idealist that I'd believe the glorious spirit of competition will prevent people from trying to collude or gain unfair advantages. But the free market must be protected (perhaps ironically) by a strong and consistent legal framework. Most obviously, legal protection of private property, but also things like anti-monopoly regulations and, in my opinion, laws against big money in politics. You are right to point out that laws may be repealed - or simply not enforced well - but I don't see an alternative. You support the government intervening in the economy for the common good, but your preferred system similarly is susceptible to corruption by powerful special interests, because politicians are always corruptible. All I can say is we have to do our best to prevent that from happening.

Planned economies of various sorts have been tried and tested, and they don't have a good track record. Typically, you have to apply extreme authoritarian force in order to make them productive, and I am strongly opposed to authoritarianism on principle. It is an illegitimate overreach of government power. There's also the fact that even smart bureaucrats and politicians tend to be pretty bad at accounting for the countless independent and often conflicting interests that exist in society. You just can't make everyone happy.

As for populism - yes, it's a hot "new" trend, but although populists may be good at winning elections, they don't necessarily make good statesmen. You can make all the lofty promises you want to appeal to the electorate, but that doesn't mean you can or even should implement those promises. For example, Trump's (and Bernie Sanders's) protectionism may sound good to regular people if you sell it with the rhetoric of "protecting American jobs", but realistically it's going to increase prices for American consumers and slow down economic growth, which is worse in the long run.

I suppose any system, no matter how well crafted, is for naught if you put it in the hands of cronies. If you want to put it that way.

Assuming you meant to say State Capitlism here. Planned economies are communist level garbo. As I said, the National Socialist experiment was a great success on the economic level. You can say a lot of things about the Axis powers, but "economically weak" is not one of them.

Trump is already making great strides, and he isn't even in office yet. He's doing especially well in foreign policy, which you might remember all of the pollsters doomsaying about.

Popular appeal and merit are proven separately, but they can also be proven concurrently.

Tbh I don't know anything about Fascist Italy's economics, but Nazi Germany's economy had many authoritarian components. The Nazis were certainly not capitalists, and used central planning to subjugate the economy to the agenda of the state, albeit to a lesser degree than in Communist countries. Many key industries were nationalized, women (and Jews) were forbidden from working, and many men were employed in public works projects or in the military and could not refuse without risking being sent to a concentration camp. The Nazis also used slave labor from labor camps.

I don't consider any of that to be morally acceptable or worth emulating.

And then there's the fact that certain industries prospered due to the war economy, as happened in many participants in WWII. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the government contracting companies to produce military materiel for wartime, but considering the Nazis launched a war of aggression, anything they did to this end was serving an inherently immoral purpose.

When I refer to economic planning, I don't just mean entirely planned economies like in the USSR.

There are pros and cons to being integrated into the world economy, but I think international trade does far more good than harm. Not every country is able to be self-sufficient, because not all necessary resources exist within the borders of every country. Trade is able to provide anything a country needs but does not have. Or even provide things that a country does have, but at a cheaper price than domestic production would cost. While the "global economy" does make all countries integrated into it more susceptible to global shocks, on balance trade makes everyone richer.
Plus, on a philosophical/moral level, if you believe in private property then who are you to stop private citizens from buying foreign goods, or from selling their goods abroad?

As for Trump, I'm not sure what great strides you're referring to. As you said, he's not even in office yet.

If you want to debate the Holohoax, we can. Not sure if you'd want to, tho.

I don't want nations to be entirely isolated, but there shouldn't be a middleman, and the scope of deals shouldn't be global and mandatory in nature. If it involves a foreign body dictating terms to my country, I disagree with it by principle.

Globalism has increased total wealth growth, especially in the west, but all of that growth is concentrated in the upper class, especially the banker elite. Middle and lower class growth has stagnated completely for years.

He's established closer ties with
-Russia
-Japan
-Taiwan
-Poland

He's also confronted China about its bullshit and kept many jobs from being exported, saving the livelihoods of thousands of Americans.

Unfortunately, this is something that traditional Republicans are right about. I agree with Sarah Palin on this.
If the government wants to pressure a private company to do something, the best way would be to use government contracts as leverage, threatening to not give them contracts unless they cooperate. Using tariffs and tax incentives to influence the operations of a specific private company is crony capitalism. Following Carrier's example, other companies can also threaten to move jobs overseas in hopes that Trump will give them special benefits to convince them to stay. And then you really do have a situation where the government is strongly interfering in the economy.

If someone is going to redefine the Republican Party, it should be someone with actual political principles and an understanding of how policy works. Someone like Rand Paul. Trump is not that guy - he's simply a populist who promises a big, strong government that will magically take care of everyone's problems, "believe me".

As much as I really hate this meme, a lot of this strikes me as something out of that 93D chess tidbit, even if it ultimately isn't depending on who really made the call.
This whole issue illustrates just how bizarre some foreign policy aspects can get, and in a way, why the people should be aware of this and be able to question it for themselves. www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/trump-taiwan/509474/digg.com/2016/trump-taiwan-why-is-it-bad-china (Digg is not intended to be the primary source, but the fact that it collects from a dozen other sources to look into, many of which have different sides to this issue)
A large aspect of this issue is foreign ambassadors and analysts making a big deal of something that quite frankly strikes me as totally nonsensical when it's put on paper. That a phone call could somehow launch a hostile policy against China's interests when publicly-known weapons dealings with Taiwan have already been commonplace for decades.
China's never going to be a fan of Trump. His entire policy of being aggressive to China is something he centered his platform on, and last time I checked, was one of the few things he has yet to 180 from. If this truly aggrevates China's leaders - actual leaders, not just their ambassadors and PR guys - then I'm pretty sure we would've been in this position eventually. But I honestly can't see how one could conclude that this is going to be "the call that starts nuclear war" or "the call the reshapes foreign policy for decades to come".
It raises the question as to if there really is a process to foreign policy or if there's something else that lies undertow.

In a way it creates a balance of power situation for China. If they want to expand into the South China Sea and build their massive fortress then fine, the United States will not only resist them but also increase support for the Republic of China. It creates a cold war era standoff which admittedly is dangerous, but because we're still "in charge" and, in theory, we're going to be more economically independent while having nato members pick up the pace on their military spending, it boxes China into a corner. I mean China's our "rival" why should we be making all of these concessions to them for free. If they hated this then they're really going to hate being labeled a currency manipulator.

Then again, this was just a phone call and Trump is right, we do send billions of dollars in weapons supplies and aid to the ROC- so it probably doesn't mean much.

it is. Are they gonna risk war or a collapse in international trade over a small island? I hope they're not that dumb. Why can't we recognize both as legitimate governments? China hasn't controlled Taiwan for as long as they've been a sovereign government. Until they do let's not let China dictate who we can have diplomatic relationships with in Asia. They'll complain about it, and we'll get over it. Funny how democrats are acting like this means war. LIke do they know how leverage and power plays work?

>"Treating Muslims like they're all terrorists will make them become terrorists."
>"Treating African-Americans like they're all criminals will make them become criminals."
>*Treats white people like they're all racists* "OMG WHY ARE SO MANY WHITE PEOPLE BECOMING RACISTS?"

Did you even read the post correctly? I wasn't stating my own views of Muslims and black people. Notice the quotation marks? I was imitating people who say that shit but then go on to treat all white people like they're racists and throw their own previous logic right out the window.